The reconstruction of archaeological textiles, a source critical approach

Eva Andersson

The reconstruction of archaeological

textiles, a source critical approach

Acta Archaeologica Lodziensia nr 50/1, 195-197

Eva Andersson

The Reconstruction

of Archaeological Textiles, a Source Critical Approach

been surprised to findhow rarely textiles and textile production arediscussed in their context.I would like

to discuss here why knowledge about textiles andtex­

tile handicraftamong archaeologistsisso bad in Scan­

dinavia. Whatcan we do aboutit?andare reconstruc­ tions one way to make the invisiblevisible?

Even if it is not necessary, I should like to start with some examples of how invisible textile handi­ craft can be. In 1995 I studied eight Scandinavian archaeological survey works. I wanted to obtain a picture of the way textile crafts are presented [An­ dersson 1996].

The study showed that descriptionsof thesecrafts are negligible. There is also a wide gap between the understanding of thefinished product andthetools and processes that lie behind it. Textile crafts are rarely discussed in a wider socialcontext andfullerdescrip­

tions of different textile techniques are missing. Ac­

cordingtothe general literature, theproductionof tex­ tiles is not a craftin the conventional sense. The Dan­ ish literature is an exception, as it generally includes

fuller descriptions [Andersson 1996:15f].Commonto all works consulted is a focus on different types of

clothing,while othertextiles, suchassailcloth,are rarely

mentioned. The economicaspect of textileproduction is never discussed, nor whether a professional produc­

tion of textilesexisted inScandinavia at this time. But is itonlytextile production that survey works give poorinformation about, or does thisalsoapply to

flint working, bronze casting, pottery or ironwork-

ing? As we know, prehistoryis divided into the stone age, the bronzeage and theiron age and itis natural thata great deal of space shouldbe devoted to these three materials. Although the various manufacturing

processes are not alwaysdescribed, the products re­ sulting from other crafts are included in the general information. It is very difficultto compare the occa­

sional mention and a few lines oftext with lengthy

discussions and descriptions.

Associating textiles solely with home production

makes the work invisible whereas great attention is

paid to iron working, which is often personified in the smith. Iwill give you one examplefrom adiscussion

of a settlement in Saedding Denmark. The author

writes: “Thesunken-floor buildings atSaeddingmust

be regarded as workshop huts. Loom weights were foundin about half of them, clearly showing their use

as weaving huts. Refuse from ironworkingwasfound

in onesingle hut.”Later in thisbook we read:“At the sametime the many finds of loom weights testify to great activityin weaving and the production of clothes.

Although it can not be proved it mustbe reasonable to assume that sheep rearing and forms of production derivedfromthis were an important basis forliveli­ hood in the village”, but at the same time the author

writes:”Perhaps thesmith was the only outright crafts­

man in the place” [Birkebaek 1982vol.2: 33].

To conclude: textiles and textile handicrafts are invisible in Scandinavian survey publications.

As to textile archaeologicalliterature, do archae­

ologists know about these publications and do they use them?

Intensive researchhas beencarried out by schol­ arssuch as AgnesGeijer, Margrete Hald, Margareta

Nockert, IngaHagg, Lise BenderJprgensen and Mar­

ta Hoffmann just to mention a few. Thanks to their

studies wehave acquired information abouttextiles

and the techniques used to produce them [see e.g.

Geijer1938;Hald 1980; Hoffmann 1964; Hagg 1974; Bender J0rgensen 1986]. Their work, as you know, has also been published. But how common is it that archaeologists consult these works when discussing

an archaeologicalcontext? I think that the situation is

not bad today, but there is adifference between,for example, DenmarkandSweden. In my opinion Dan­ ish archaeologists useknowledge oftextile publica­ tions, buttheir Swedish colleagues do not. Do they

not knowabout them,or do they not understand them or do they not realise the importance of knowledge about textiles?

It is seldom that textiles or textile handicrafts are a part of the story that archaeologists create ofprehis­

toric society.

EVA ANDERSSON

An argumentthat is often heard isthat there are

few textiles, butwe know thatthisisnot thecase and I thinkthat several reasons for this relatively vague picture oftextile production may be identified. One is

the generally poor knowledge of textile crafts and their significance.

Another reason may be thedifficultiesintransfer­

ringthe highly specialised analysesof archaeological textiles intoa broader understandingof theirsignifi­

cance. Often textile finds are studied in isolation. If the results are published, the analysis is very often

presented in anappendixattheend in thepublication.

A thirdreason mightbe linked to gender. In my

literature review it was very clear that atleastin the

past there was an automatic terminological division intomen’s work andwomen’schores that gave (give)

a lower status to women’s work. “Shears, spindle

whorls and linen brushes denote women’s chores”

[Kivikoski 1961: 212]. Chores are routine tasks that

can be performed on the side, whereas work is con­ crete, important, and essential for survival. I think that people today are awareof the unfairness ofthis distinction, but we nevertheless see how women’s work isassociated with thedomestic sphere, thefarm and its immediate surroundings, in a way thatis dif­

ferent from traditionally male pursuits. For the people who lived in prehistoric times, the things that were

produced, above allthe knowledge of production tech­

niques, were highly significant. If we disregard pro­ duction for sale and instead look at the needs that

existed then, we see that there is a natural place for

skin preparation, pottery, ironwork and textile pro­ duction in descriptions ofeveryday work.

A fourthreasonis that many people think thatitis

verydifficulttounderstandtextileanalysis.Maybe it

is true that we are bad in explaining why it is so

important to know the differences between a z-spun thread andas-spun thread or a tabby and a twill.But

every craft specialisation is hard to understand to start

with,but itis not impossible. Today,for example, we

teach students thenames of anendless amount of flint artefacts, ceramic chronology, different patterns on bronzes and soon. Why should it be harderto learn abouttextiletechniques?

Textile production is an important aspect of the past, and the potential for improving our knowledge of this field is great. Toachievethis, it is vitalthat we takea broader viewof textile production.We needto include archaeological textiles, textile tools and the

raw materials used, andwe need to relate them tothe society whence they come, noting their importance

and significance in an economic andsocial context. What can andshall wedoabout this?

One way is ofcourse to make the invisible visible and we must start with the students. I think thatit is

very importantthat studentslearn aboutboth textiles

and textile handicrafts while they are studying ar­ chaeology in the first semester. We who have this

opportunitytoinfluence thecourses must make sure

that just aswe are teaching them about ceramics, flint

knapping andbronze casting, we must also teach them about the roll of textiles and theirimportancein the

prehistoric period. Finally and maybe most impor­ tantly, we must discuss textile craftsand put them into an archaeological context.

Can reconstructions make textiles more visible? Yes of course.First I think that it isveryimportant to

actually show pictures of, forexample, clothing,even if wedo not know exactlywhat the garmentslooked like. I think thatthosewho are working with textile

analyses can create these pictures,evenif theyare not 100% sure. Archaeology is a science in which we

always work with reconstruction. Ithink that you have allseen pictures of houses from the prehistoric period

but what do we actually know aboutthe walls andthe

roof? Those who are workingwith archaeological tex­

tilematerial have therelevant knowledge and you can

always write under thefigure that this is a reconstruc­ tion basedon what you know. Itisimportant to bear in

mindthat if textile scholarsdo not create this picture, others will, maybe without as much knowledge as

you have.

From pictures in a book the step to full scale re­

construction is not great. What this type ofrecon­ struction cangivearchaeology,dependson thequali­

ty of the reconstruction. Reconstruction can be done,

as youknow,in manydifferentways. The first thing, Ithink, is that it is very important to explain how itis done. If the correct method is not used, if you have used amachine spun thread(for example) or a fabric

woven in a common plain weave, explain why. Prob­

ably the explanation is that it would have been too

expensive to produce the textile in the correct way BUT that is also a result. If it is so hard to produce

textiles todayin the same way that they did in prehis­ toric times, that gives anidea of how valuable textiles werein thosedays.

Can the work of producinga full-scale reconstruc­ tion contribute anything toarchaeology?Yes natural­

lybut we must work in asource criticalway. We must know whichtools were used and I don’t just mean, for example, spindle whorls,loom weights and so on,but

the specific tool for the particular period. If you are

going to producea cloth from, forexample, Birka you must knowwhich types of tool were foundthere.

It is also very important to work with highlyskilled craftsmen who are specialists intheirprofession. But it is also important to work with the same tools and thesamefibre qualities that we knowwereusedinthe

olddays. I also think thatwehave a lot to learn from

196

THE RECONSTRUCTION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL TEXTILES

craftsmen who are still working in a traditional way but we must realise that the tools and, maybe most

importantly, the fabrics have changed through the

years. Marta Hoffmann did fantastic work when she

actually recorded surviving knowledge about weav­

ingon the warp-weighted loom. Butthe weaves that the Norwegian women produced in the1950sarenoth­

ing likethe qualities thatwe know were produced on

this type of loom inthe Vikingperiod.

To conclude: a good reconstructionbasedon the archaeological material and the knowledge that you have about textile crafts can contributeto archaeolo­

gy very important knowledge about notonly clothing

and dress, but also about work with textiles and its important role in prehistoric society.

I think that together we can succeedin convincing

archaeologists about the important role that textiles and textile production havehadfromthe beginning of time. That is our obligation towards all the women

and men who have worked so hard to produce their threads,fabricsand garments inprehistory.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Andersson E.

1996 Invisible Handicrafts, The general Picture of Textile

and Skin Crafts in Scandinavian Surveys, “Lund Ar­ chaeological Review 1995”, 7-20.

Bender Jorgensen L.

1986 Forhistoriske tekstiler i Skandinavien - Prehistoric Scandinavian Textiles (Nordiske Fortidsminder se­ rie B. Bind 9), Det Kgl. Nordiske Oldskriftselskab: Kobenhavn.

Birkebsek F.

1982 Danmarkshistorien: Vikingetiden 1-2. Copenhagen.

Geijer A.

1938 Birka III. Die Textilfunde aus den Grabem, Stockholm.

Hald M.

1980 Ancient Danish Textiles from Bogs and Burials. A Comparative Study of Costume and Iron Age textiles,

Copenhagen. Hoffmann M.l

1964 The Warp-Weighted Loom, Oslo.

Hagg, I.

1974 Kvinnodrakten i Birka (Aun 2), Uppsala. Kivikoski E.

1961 Finlands forhistoria, Helsinki. Nockert M.

1991 The Hogom find and other migration period textiles and costumes in Scandinavia, Umea.

Eva Andersson

Institut for Arkeologi, Lunds Universitet Sandgatan 1

223 50 Lund Sweden